History Repeating Itself

[The New Guy]

Just out of curiosity, this is something I saw someone else mention on a mailing list I'm on. It's an interesting idea.

Saddam Hussien has long seen himself as the great protector and future liberator of 'Palestine' (which to him means the entire Arabic Peninsula). This is one of the reasons many of the other countries around him are a bit touch and go on relations with him (and aren't exactly coming to his rescue in this, his hour of need).

But is it possible that Saddam has the Islamic equivalent of a Jesus complex?

Alright - it's a little far fetched I agree. But think about it. Saddam has been known to murder members of his own country (the Kurds in the north) and even his own Ba'ath party (see the video from 1979). This constitutes killing members of his own tribe, which is something that Mohammed did in the Koran. Of course Mohammed I believe was justified in his killings (I am not a Koran scholar, I can not verify this), whereas Saddam has done them for one reason or another.

The other piece of evidence is Saddam's defence of Baghdad, which seems to be centred around digging trenches. Yes, trench warfare is common, but it also went out of style some time ago. However, Mohammed defeated a much larger Meccan (I believe) army in much the same fashion.

Just a couple of antecdotal points. I'm sure a Koran scholar could point out a few good flaws. But is it possible that one of the reasons Saddam Hussien has been so defiant is that he sees himself as a 'second coming' of sorts of Mohammed?

Does anyone here have any light to shed on this?

Later

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Don't know about the Messianic angle, though it hardly seems far-fetched. However, the following, for those unfamiliar with his "inspirations", is revealing:

"You also have seen what he studied, his books. Can you give us an insight into his mind, into his thinking?

We have seen him many times and I have seen his library. And he had a lot of books about Stalin and the Stalin system and he liked it. And he actually liked the way Stalin was dealing, was making policies-- he was following the same tactic.

I mean, some people say Saddam is like Hitler. Much different, I think. Hitler fought people outside his country but Stalin--how he behaved in his own country against his own people and the opposition--there are a lot of similarities with Saddam.

What was it like for you, when you walked into that study and you saw these Stalin books?

I was amazed. And when we asked him about communism, reading all those books, he says 'But even Stalin, was he a Communist? Stalin used communist party as a tool to stay in power. To govern the country, to defend his country. And we have other tools.'

'It's not a matter of an ideology,' he says. 'A statesman usually uses an ideology here and there to stay in power, to govern the country.' So that is why he thought that Stalin was more a nationalist than a communist.

... At that time, in the 1970s, people were not much against Stalin as now. The Soviet Union was still there, the leftist ideas were in the area, but later on when he started killing people through poisoning, killings, chemical weapons, everything. ... You remember, [Saddam] was trying to deport the whole Kurdish people to the South. He did half of it. Then came the war with Kuwait and then the war with Iran. He couldn't finish it. And Stalin did the same. Stalin deported the whole Chechen people from one area to many areas. We saw gradually that we are dealing with a man, who's quite dangerous.

Did he give you an impression that he'd actually collected books on Stalin, and was actually studying his methods?

He didn't say 'I'm studying his method.' But he was fond of him as a good leader, a big, important leader. He wanted [to study] Second World War, and so forth. And he really looked to be imitating Stalin's ways of action."

- www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/othman.html

[Ged]

An interesting read. www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

[Cranky]

Saddam wants the Arab world to think of him as King and a savior. He puts himself on the same pantheon as Mao and other great leaders.

Actually, insiders to the Iraqi regime have said that Saddam has become a great student of history. Or at least history that suits his thinking. He tells the Arab world and anyone else who cares to listen to him that he is the second coming of the ancient Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. This is the king that live around 600 BC. To further lay claim to greatness in the Arab world, he points out to them that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple of Solomon and took back all the children of Israel to Babylon. That is what the Bible say.

What better way to convince everyone that he was indeed as great as the Ancient King if he could destroy Israel with Scud missiles. And while he is at it, why not bring down the Evil Empire. Better yet, it would suit him fine if he controlled the Middle East and from there the world economies.

Saddam has a Law Degree from the University of Cairo so people should not think of him as some kind of country bumpkin. He has spend an enormous time in his country, carefully manipulating his image to convince all who he really is. If convincing did not work, there was always a bullet to back it up.

I am going to take lessons from him. After all, I am feverishly working on my World Emperor plan. TNG and Spozzy are my first ministers. The rest of you just get money and woman (or man ).

[Cranky]

Ged said:

An interesting read. www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

Thanks Ged. One thing that is bothering me, personally. Why the heck am I spending so much time reading and learning about Saddam. I am starting to feel like I am staring at an accident and studying what a bumper does to a human body.

Good God, I wish the Hab’s made the playoffs. It would take my mind and a lot of other peoples mind off this war. Or at least diminish it a bit.

Therrien..Saddam……….Saddam..Therrien. There it is, A LINK for my obsessions!

[The New Guy]

Thanks Ged. One thing that is bothering me, personally. Why the heck am I spending so much time reading and learning about Saddam. I am starting to feel like I am staring at an accident and studying what a bumper does to a human body.

Because it's quite likely that by understanding Saddam we can understand further why he does what he does. It's an interesting aside to the entire war discussion, one which is on a topic we are all interested in. And no one disagrees that Saddam is an evil person, so there is less argument and more discussion.

An interesting read. www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm

Mentions that he considers himself to be the direct descendant of Mohammed. More fuel to the fire? A little I suppose, but a lot of Middle Eastern rulers do that I am told.

And to Mr. Bozo, I was wondering when someone would breech that idea. He obviously rules with a Stalinistic bent (ooh... lets see how many pretty murals I can make of the great holy leader, wonderful divine champion of the heavens, hammer of allah me). You could also argue that his current strategy in the desert mirrors the defence of Moscow by Stalin in the Second World War. Withdraw with a scorched earth policy (well... not that there's much earth to scorch, but he has made efforts to burn his oil wells etc) to your main city, use guerrilla forces to harry supply lines, and when they get to Baghdad?

Well... quite frankly, the more I think about it, the more I'm terrified about it. This would be the ideal time to utilize the WMD's that they might (or might not) have. It would duplicate the Second World War (everything is pulled into Moscow, once the invaders reach the city gates, hit them with everything you have to grind them to a halt, then counter attack.

I guess we'll see shortly. I hope the American generals are looking at some history books right now to try and figure out exactly what mistakes they might make that echo hisotrically. After all, Saddam has clearly said that the Americans will die upon the gates of Baghdad. And while he's a pompous, sadistic, terrorizing lunatic, he's also very intellegent. He's got something up his sleeve - you can bank on that. He always has.

Later

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The_New_Guy said:

Because it's quite likely that by understanding Saddam we can understand further why he does what he does. It's an interesting aside to the entire war discussion, one which is on a topic we are all interested in. And no one disagrees that Saddam is an evil person, so there is less argument and more discussion.

Quite right. The main purpose of my agenda of posting articles and links to articles about Saddam and Iraqi history is to broaden the base of discussion. And yes, of course, to bolster the argument for my primary concern about US quasi-unilateralism; the fallout from the war, and hence my opposition to it (I'm sure by now that comes as a surprise to no-one).

TNG, I salute you for recognizing this rather bizarre, though logical, middle ground.

Mentions that he considers himself to be the direct descendant of Mohammed. More fuel to the fire? A little I suppose, but a lot of Middle Eastern rulers do that I am told.

And to Mr. Bozo, I was wondering when someone would breech that idea. He obviously rules with a Stalinistic bent (ooh... lets see how many pretty murals I can make of the great holy leader, wonderful divine champion of the heavens, hammer of allah me). You could also argue that his current strategy in the desert mirrors the defence of Moscow by Stalin in the Second World War. Withdraw with a scorched earth policy (well... not that there's much earth to scorch, but he has made efforts to burn his oil wells etc) to your main city, use guerrilla forces to harry supply lines, and when they get to Baghdad?

Well... quite frankly, the more I think about it, the more I'm terrified about it. This would be the ideal time to utilize the WMD's that they might (or might not) have. It would duplicate the Second World War (everything is pulled into Moscow, once the invaders reach the city gates, hit them with everything you have to grind them to a halt, then counter attack.

I guess we'll see shortly. I hope the American generals are looking at some history books right now to try and figure out exactly what mistakes they might make that echo hisotrically. After all, Saddam has clearly said that the Americans will die upon the gates of Baghdad. And while he's a pompous, sadistic, terrorizing lunatic, he's also very intellegent. He's got something up his sleeve - you can bank on that. He always has.

Later

Yes, though not directly a response to the original call of this thread, I did think the Stalin connection worth mentioning. And yes, it does present a frightening tactical scenario. And yes, it's one of the many reasons for my opposition to...

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Further background to Saddam's tactics from The Washington Post, December 2002

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has adopted a two-pronged strategy in his showdown with the United States, according to U.S. experts. He wants to delay war as long as possible. If that fails, he is preparing his people for a brutal and protracted conflict that would give him hero status in the Muslim world."

[The New Guy]

Yes, though not directly a response to the original call of this thread, I did think the Stalin connection worth mentioning. And yes, it does present a frightening tactical scenario. And yes, it's one of the many reason for my opposition to...

Well - if the US makes a mistake like ignoring the possible origins of Saddam's strategy one might imagine they deserve the same fate as the planners of the much vaunted/derided Manigot Line (which, although very much the impregnable fortress the French intended it to be, had one crucial flaw. Belgium - which is the universal source of German attacks on France).

Let's hope for everyone's sake that Tommy Franks has more intellegence than that.

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has adopted a two-pronged strategy in his showdown with the United States, according to U.S. experts. He wants to delay war as long as possible. If that fails, he is preparing his people for a brutal and protracted conflict that would give him hero status in the Muslim world."

Doubtful the second part will work. Certainly, certain portions of the Muslim world will see a bloody war against the US as the jihad (much the same as certain portions of the Muslim world see Bin Laden as a hero, and certain portions of the Muslim population try to blow up Jews whilst they kill themselves in Israel) the "Muslim world" with the exception of Syria I believe (including Iran, Jordan, The Palestian Semi-Free Region, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait Qutar and Yemen) really loathe Saddam. In truth, they'd like to kill him because he reflects poorly upon their religion. Much the same as most of the cult leaders who pretend to be based on a 'religion' in the US.

Later,

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

It largely depends on how much of the populace sees the war as becoming a battle against "occupying infidel crusaders". I say wait and see. I think, but don't presume, you'd agree that political alliances, official or behind the scenes, are anything but easily predictable in the Middle East. Same as it ever was.

[Rhiessan]

HabsAddict said:

Thanks Ged. One thing that is bothering me, personally. Why the heck am I spending so much time reading and learning about Saddam.

Know thine enemy.
Something I might add the US has not always done. Lets just hope past ignorances have been learned from.

[The New Guy]

mr said:

It largely depends on how much of the populace sees the war as becoming a battle against "occupying infidel crusaders". I say wait and see. I think, but don't presume, you'd agree that political alliances, official or behind the scenes, are anything but easily predictable in the Middle East. Same as it ever was.

Which is exactly why it won't erupt into a total Muslim/Western conflict. We, as a predominantly Christian population (being very careful about this and stressing predominantly) in a very tolerant part of the world have little idea how much hate can exist between different sects of the same religion.

But go ask someone from Ireland what they think of the crowd from Northern Ireland. They can barely keep their tempers long enough to try and negotiate a peace treaty (although it has calmed down in recent years). Similarly, Islam is not a single religion, but a collection of similar ones, which don't get along.

Later,

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The_New_Guy said:

Which is exactly why it won't erupt into a total Muslim/Western conflict. We, as a predominantly Christian population (being very careful about this and stressing predominantly) in a very tolerant part of the world have little idea how much hate can exist between different sects of the same religion.

But go ask someone from Ireland what they think of the crowd from Northern Ireland. They can barely keep their tempers long enough to try and negotiate a peace treaty (although it has calmed down in recent years). Similarly, Islam is not a single religion, but a collection of similar ones, which don't get along.

Later,

Quite true. Though not as extreme, I have my own experiences from growing as a first generation Canadian growing up in Montréal in the '50s and '60s.

There are just so many potential confrontation scenarios: Sunni-Shia, Baath-religious fundamentalists, Baath-just about anyone else, Kurds-Arabs, clan-clan, Kurds-Turks, Iran-Iraq, anyone with a score to settle...

[The New Guy]

There are just so many potential confrontation scenarios: Sunni-Shia, Baath-religious fundamentalists, Baath-just about anyone else, Kurds-Arabs, clan-clan, Kurds-Turks, Iran-Iraq, anyone with a score to settle...

Which one would imagine would be a great big screaming reason FOR (note: big bold letters not used to make it more believable, but to stress my point, in case someone decides to try and attack me instead of the topic again...) American intervention.

Consider the other options. Saddam loses his grip on the country and the Kurds, Ba'ath and Sunni Muslims (the predominant groups of north, heartland and south of Iraq IIRC) suddenly find out that they are 'free'. The Kurds take the northern oil fields and try to form an independant Kurdish state in the north of what was Iraq and the south of Turkey. This leads to the Turks invading. The Kurds also likely try to exact some revenge on the Ba'ath in the central of Iraq. The Sunni's in the south are likely quite happy to be free and to have the rich southern oilfields, and in revenge for years of opression will also willfully begin to slaughter the Ba'ath party. Not to mention the wonderful traditionalist Muslims next door in Iran.

The outcome would likely look similar to the frequent revolutions in Africa. Full of bloody, ethnic cleansing.

Dark days indeed.

At least this way there's a force, a very strong, firm force present in the region to protect against this. Sure, the kurds may get antsy in the north, but the presence of the American military actually lends stability in the region during the change over. And if the government is built properly, Iraq could be a cause for stability in the region once the US pulls out rather than the force for chaos it is now. It stands to reason that a strong Iraq could enhance a possible Palestinian state in/near Israel, lower dissedint forces in Saudi Arabia and possibly bring some element of peace to the troubled region.

Later,

[MC Habber]

Anybody know what Bush's "Kill tally" in Texas was?

[The New Guy]

Anybody know what Bush's "Kill tally" in Texas was?

(a) The death penalty was legal in Texas before Bush came in I believe, and remains there no that he's gone. Just because he didn't take the law off the books - I assure you, there are a lot of people who don't have the same objections to the death penalty as you might have. I sure as hell would sleep sounder at night if guys like Charlie Manson and Paul Bernardo were dead (please note: I am not starting a deaht penalty debate. I am, as a rule, against the death penalty. However, there are cases where I have no real objection to it).

(b) What does Bush's "kill tally" have to do with the price of tea in China?

[GMan77]

The_New_Guy said:

Which one would imagine would be a great big screaming reason FOR (note: big bold letters not used to make it more believable, but to stress my point, in case someone decides to try and attack me instead of the topic again...) American intervention.

Consider the other options. Saddam loses his grip on the country and the Kurds, Ba'ath and Sunni Muslims (the predominant groups of north, heartland and south of Iraq IIRC) suddenly find out that they are 'free'. The Kurds take the northern oil fields and try to form an independant Kurdish state in the north of what was Iraq and the south of Turkey. This leads to the Turks invading. The Kurds also likely try to exact some revenge on the Ba'ath in the central of Iraq. The Sunni's in the south are likely quite happy to be free and to have the rich southern oilfields, and in revenge for years of opression will also willfully begin to slaughter the Ba'ath party. Not to mention the wonderful traditionalist Muslims next door in Iran.

The outcome would likely look similar to the frequent revolutions in Africa. Full of bloody, ethnic cleansing.

Dark days indeed.

At least this way there's a force, a very strong, firm force present in the region to protect against this. Sure, the kurds may get antsy in the north, but the presence of the American military actually lends stability in the region during the change over. And if the government is built properly, Iraq could be a cause for stability in the region once the US pulls out rather than the force for chaos it is now. It stands to reason that a strong Iraq could enhance a possible Palestinian state in/near Israel, lower dissedint forces in Saudi Arabia and possibly bring some element of peace to the troubled region.

Later,

Strong force?... firm presence?

Have you not seen what happened in Afghanistan?... They went in an bombed, captured the capital but left the rest of the country unprotected... and now all of the country except the capital is under the rule of the warlords, and because of it the puppet government the USA has installed has no power over the country except in the capital itself.

So the USA's intervention led to the exact chaos you mistakenly think they will help prevent, ironic to say the least.

The truth is Bush's administration is very divided on the issue of what to do once Saddam is out of the picture... the Hawks (Cheney, Rumsfeld) want to get out as quickly as possible, while the neo-conservatives want to stay and maintain control long-term... the fact is the "stability" you speak of is a dream more than it is fact.

www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15439

Of course, if you just watch CNN all day you'll never know it.
The USA propaganda has a stronger hold on it's people than the Iraqi's propaganda has on theirs.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I didn't read any more of the string, TNG, because I wanted to offer you my opinions before doing so. If they happen to reflect those of others, well, sucks to be me.

The_New_Guy said:

Just out of curiosity, this is something I saw someone else mention on a mailing list I'm on. It's an interesting idea.

Saddam Hussien has long seen himself as the great protector and future liberator of 'Palestine' (which to him means the entire Arabic Peninsula). This is one of the reasons many of the other countries around him are a bit touch and go on relations with him (and aren't exactly coming to his rescue in this, his hour of need).

I think he has his own agenda in promoting the Palestinians. That attitude gives him a modest, though not so public, common goal with his Arab neighbours. Also, by supporting the Palestinian cause, he openly rejects the existance of Israel. That attitude alone keeps him in good company with the one boarder not affected by UN embargos, Syria.

But is it possible that Saddam has the Islamic equivalent of a Jesus complex?

The vast majority of his people hate him. Over the years though, they've learned that death often follows should one express a condensending opinion of their leader.

Alright - it's a little far fetched I agree. But think about it. Saddam has been known to murder members of his own country (the Kurds in the north) and even his own Ba'ath party (see the video from 1979). This constitutes killing members of his own tribe, which is something that Mohammed did in the Koran. Of course Mohammed I believe was justified in his killings (I am not a Koran scholar, I can not verify this), whereas Saddam has done them for one reason or another.

His favourite movies are the Godfather trilogies. He even has a derby (made of Kavelar of course) that resembles the one Michael wore in the Godfather II. His motives are entirely self-serving whereas Mohammed was building a belief. I won't get into what is right or wrong.

The other piece of evidence is Saddam's defence of Baghdad, which seems to be centred around digging trenches. Yes, trench warfare is common, but it also went out of style some time ago. However, Mohammed defeated a much larger Meccan (I believe) army in much the same fashion.

In the desert there is absolutely no place to run. Trenches are a way of stopping bullets, however, they are a static defensive system only. Eventually, the Republican Guard will have to vacate them and head into the streets and buildings of Baghdad. This is what will take the longest time; the fighting in built up areas (FIBUA).

Just a couple of antecdotal points. I'm sure a Koran scholar could point out a few good flaws. But is it possible that one of the reasons Saddam Hussien has been so defiant is that he sees himself as a 'second coming' of sorts of Mohammed?

Does anyone here have any light to shed on this?

Later

I can't say for sure, but he might just think himself a deity of sorts. Too bad his the majority of his people don't think so.

Thanks, TNG. Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

G said:

So the USA's intervention led to the exact chaos you mistakenly think they will help prevent, ironic to say the least.

Bummer but true. There will be chaos in Iraq after this is done. And the USA and Britain would be best to leave a soon as possible.

All of these film clips we've seen where the Marines were cutting down posters of Hussein were nice in the beginning but were not accurately indicative of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.

All the coalition forces had to do was go a little further north to find a different attitude. They were facing questions like, "... where are the supplies and medicines you've promised us?" or, "... when will you be leaving Iraq..."

This is where the UN has to step in and prevent political and humanitarian catasrophes. If there's any evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis can sort the political situation out themselves, the UN and/or coalition will have to step aside immediately. Indeed, it will have to be the Iraqis themselves who will have to sort this out, without any outside meddling.

The proof of this type of political disaster was after WW I, where the victorious allies decided to divy up the Balkans the way they saw fit. Yet, no one thought to ask the indigenous peoples first. The result was the early ninety's Balkan wars.

Cheers.

[The New Guy]

Edit: Me fixy one of my tags

Strong force?... firm presence?

Have you not seen what happened in Afghanistan?... They went in an bombed, captured the capital but left the rest of the country unprotected... and now all of the country except the capital is under the rule of the warlords, and because of it the puppet government the USA has installed has no power over the country except in the capital itself.

So the USA's intervention led to the exact chaos you mistakenly think they will help prevent, ironic to say the least.

You're comparing apples and oranges G-man. Afghanistan was a totally different operation from the get go. The US sent in minimal ground troops and utilized the warlords and massive, massive air superiority to pound the Taliban to the ground. In all honesty, Afghanistan was merely an operation designed to seek out and destroy Osama Bin Laden. Americans demanded action in the face of 9/11. Bush, being smarter than people give him credit for (or at least having smarter advisors) did exactly what the American people wanted.

The freeing the populace from the wrathful control of the Taliban was just a moral high ground.

This war is totally different. Notice how the Kurds in the north (despite having enough manpower and weaponry to at least keep Saddam distracted) have done almost nothing, and how the US is actually discouraging the uprising in the Basra. This is an operation for control of the country. Massive troop presence, massive blitzkrieg style, rapidly advancing armour.

Don't get me wrong - the situation may still denegrate. But how does tribal chaos in the Middle East and total non-control of the oil fields (which is what PTH proposes this whole shoot and match is about) serve any US interest? What happens if the chaos spreads to Saudi Arabia?

No, tribal chaos is not what the US wants, nor what they will let happen if they can avoid it. This is not the fight against the Taliban - there is a real purpose to this war.

The truth is Bush's administration is very divided on the issue of what to do once Saddam is out of the picture... the Hawks (Cheney, Rumsfeld) want to get out as quickly as possible, while the neo-conservatives want to stay and maintain control long-term... the fact is the "stability" you speak of is a dream more than it is fact.
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15439
Of course, if you just watch CNN all day you'll never know it.
The USA propaganda has a stronger hold on it's people than the Iraqi's propaganda has on theirs.

I'm sorry - CNN may be full of US propoganda, but also remember what CNN's real motive is. Money. The almighty dollar. They're even now sniffing for the hint of scandal or mistake ('Did you underestimate the Iraqi forces? Is that a 1000 piece armour column heading towards your blitzkrieg to try and break it up?'). Where as alternet is busy running conspiracy theories ('Ohh... the new voting machines can be reprogrammed so corporations can buy your votes', 'All the movie reviewers are actually media shills' etc). CNN may be untruthful and biased, but it's much less so that alternet will ever me.

Personal attacks on other posters are not necessary, and contribute nothing. Please confine criticisms to the contents of the post itself, not the poster. Thanks.

Can you explain to me how I'm making a personal attack here? I'm attack the source of the article in question. I'm saying it's terribly biased. I've made stronger personal attacks in other posts - at least insofar as I'm aware I'm attacking someone personally. Hell, PTH has made stronger personal attacks against me in other posts than I intended to make here. If I have insulted you G-man, I apologize. But can someone tell me what I did wrong here through private message?

Later

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

Edit: Me fixy one of my tags



You're comparing apples and oranges G-man. Afghanistan was a totally different operation from the get go.

You're right - no oil in Afghanistan. However, since the US invasion, there's been a massive pipeline installed that gives access to oil/gas from the souther ex-Soviet republics. The Taliban didn't want that pipeline. And where are they now... ?

The freeing the populace from the wrathful control of the Taliban was just a moral high ground.

Freeing a people from an oppresive regime could just be moral high ground and not the real aim ? How shocking !!!

This war is totally different. Notice how the Kurds in the north (despite having enough manpower and weaponry to at least keep Saddam distracted) have done almost nothing,

Maybe because they don't want to see another 30 000 of them killed if the US backs out from its promises ?

But how does tribal chaos in the Middle East and total non-control of the oil fields (which is what PTH proposes this whole shoot and match is about) serve any US interest? What happens if the chaos spreads to Saudi Arabia?

You can have tribal chaos and still get out the oil. It's happening in Nigeria, for starters.

No, tribal chaos is not what the US wants, nor what they will let happen if they can avoid it. This is not the fight against the Taliban - there is a real purpose to this war.

Yup - there is oil on the line here. But tribal chaos isn't an "aim" either - but hey, if it happens, it happens, right ? It's called self-determination...

But like PTH and to a lesser extent Mr. Bozo feel free to deluge us with poorly written, half truthful conspiracy theories on one topic or another if you think it will help you prove a point.

Sorry if reporters who don't take things from Bush's own press corps aren't quite as polished as you'd like; but you might want to read some of those articles at some point.

The fact that Bush's presidency is centered on a new energy bill and that most of his cabinet are former oil execs means nothing ? The fact that it's been US right-wing plans for 10 years now to invade Iraq means nothing ? I could go on, but you get my drift.

[The New Guy]

You're right - no oil in Afghanistan. However, since the US invasion, there's been a massive pipeline installed that gives access to oil/gas from the souther ex-Soviet republics. The Taliban didn't want that pipeline. And where are they now... ?

Yup - the world revolves around oil Phil. Tell me, do you have original thoughts or do you just read conspiracy theories, decide it's in vouge to believe them and jump on the bandwagon?

Freeing a people from an oppresive regime could just be moral high ground and not the real aim ? How shocking !!!

I was made quite clear that the US was going in to Afghanistan with every intention of simply knocking over Al Queda and it's support lines in return for 9/11. However, that involved knocking over the Taliban - which meant there would have to be a governmental change.

Maybe because they don't want to see another 30 000 of them killed if the US backs out from its promises?

Right... the US is what? Fifty miles from Baghdad. They're really going to just suddenly decide to go home and leave Saddam in power. Really - you astound me with these theories you come up with that make no sense at all.

Yup - there is oil on the line here. But tribal chaos isn't an "aim" either - but hey, if it happens, it happens, right ? It's called self-determination...

And you were accusing me of being obsessed with oil?

Tell me, how can you cling to theories that you can't back up with reason. You seem to be by and large a reasonable person. Capable of logic. But your arguments for this entire war for oil are based in nothing but the accusations of other doves like yourself who are trying to find some reason to be against the war. If you were simply a pacifist I could buy this. You don't have to have a reason (but with that stance you really don't have any ground to attack someone for their support of the war either, as if you can be reasonless so can they).

That'd be fine, but you throw this nonsense at me. Nonsense that I've dismissed and disproven many times before. Nonsense that hasn't a logical leg to stand on.

I'm asking you for reason. For good solid logic. Not a conspiracy theroy. Not the creation of a global paranoid mind. Something real. Tangible. How the US profits from this - from the UN running Iraq after the war (good news - Germany has threatened to use its veto to prevent the UN from being involved in the reconstruction effort. They must be be involved in this global conspiracy too somehow!).

I wait with bated breath.

Sorry if reporters who don't take things from Bush's own press corps aren't quite as polished as you'd like; but you might want to read some of those articles at some point.

I have. How red beef is tempting the nations teens in obesity. How the US's new voting machines are just a tool of corporate america so they can select their own president (ignoring the fact that the old, hole punch voting machines that have long been used would be much easier to rig and far less easy to detect).

Don't get me wrong. CNN is obviously biased. But they are not biased for or against the US. They are biased for whatever will make them the most money. Last Wednesday they outdrew American Idol. Big money.

Meanwhile Alternet is based on the thought that there is no trustworthy media outlet in the world. Which is a conspiracy theory in and of itself. It's of the same quality as found in "White Nationalist News Sources" and other such devoted, one sided, news sources.

At least money keeps CNN almost honest

Later

[MC Habber]

Right... the US is what? Fifty miles from Baghdad. They're really going to just suddenly decide to go home and leave Saddam in power. Really - you astound me with these theories you come up with that make no sense at all.

Nevermind theories, put yourself in the shoes of a Kurdish person, after the US broke their promises and left them to be slaughtered a mere 12 years ago (and Consider that wars have started over far less). Would you really trust the US not to abandon you again?

[MC Habber]

The_New_Guy said:

(b) What does Bush's "kill tally" have to do with the price of tea in China?

It's precisely as relevant as Saddam's is in determining what the real reasons are for this war, and what the consequences of it will be. (In other words not at all)

On the death penalty subject, the book Lazarus and the Hurricane about the freeing of Rubin Hurricane Carter gives a lot of insight into the American legal system. It certainly made me reevaluate my views. (Alternatively you can watch the movie The Hurricane with Denzel Washington)

[GMan77]

The_New_Guy said:

Edit: Me fixy one of my tags
You're comparing apples and oranges G-man. Afghanistan was a totally different operation from the get go. The US sent in minimal ground troops and utilized the warlords and massive, massive air superiority to pound the Taliban to the ground. In all honesty, Afghanistan was merely an operation designed to seek out and destroy Osama Bin Laden. Americans demanded action in the face of 9/11. Bush, being smarter than people give him credit for (or at least having smarter advisors) did exactly what the American people wanted.

The freeing the populace from the wrathful control of the Taliban was just a moral high ground.

Oh yes, freed the populace from the wrathful Taliban and right into the hands of the peace-loving & caring warlords... gee thanks.
Fact is Bush & co was so excited to jump on Iraq as soon as possible they never finished the job... the goal was to 1-find Osama and 2-clean up Afghanistan so it could no longer be an Al-Quaeda haven. The result is 0 for 2, Osama is still on the loose & with practically the whole country besides the capital under warlord control. And my oh my I can't imagine one or more of those warlord could be bought off to start harboring Al-Quaeda members once more... can you?

This war is totally different. Notice how the Kurds in the north (despite having enough manpower and weaponry to at least keep Saddam distracted) have done almost nothing, and how the US is actually discouraging the uprising in the Basra. This is an operation for control of the country. Massive troop presence, massive blitzkrieg style, rapidly advancing armour.

Don't get me wrong - the situation may still denegrate. But how does tribal chaos in the Middle East and total non-control of the oil fields (which is what PTH proposes this whole shoot and match is about) serve any US interest? What happens if the chaos spreads to Saudi Arabia?

No, tribal chaos is not what the US wants, nor what they will let happen if they can avoid it. This is not the fight against the Taliban - there is a real purpose to this war.

US will not install this "great freedom" or "beacon of democracy"... the usual bull transmited by CNN and all US media. The reality is that they will install a puppet government that will distribute the oil rights to the US's liking.
No thought has been given to the Kurds and how they've been living in limbo in the North, no thought of letting them get their own independant state or anything like that.
Instead they have said the integrity of Iraq's borders will remain. Why? Because that's what their friends Turkey wants.

This war was done for 2 reasons:

1- every passing day where Saddam is still in power was an embarassment to Father Bush and his administration, most of whom just happen to be in Little Bush's team as well.
It highlighted how they screwed up the 1st time when they didn't finish him off, when they looked on as the people they encouraged to rebel were slaughtered for listening to them... with their US forces right there and watching, ordered not to interfere.

2- with Saudi Arabia being the #1 oil producer, and them being so inextricably linked to terrorism or the harboring of them... US relations have cooled, and the US needs another major supplier so they can then tell the Saudis what they really think.

None of the reasons for attacking Iraq have to do with their bogus Al-Quaeda ties, or the broken resolutions... that's just the excuse the US feeds us, and nobody in the world is buying other than about half of the US population.

I'm sorry - CNN may be full of US propoganda, but also remember what CNN's real motive is. Money. The almighty dollar. They're even now sniffing for the hint of scandal or mistake ('Did you underestimate the Iraqi forces? Is that a 1000 piece armour column heading towards your blitzkrieg to try and break it up?'). Where as alternet is busy running conspiracy theories ('Ohh... the new voting machines can be reprogrammed so corporations can buy your votes', 'All the movie reviewers are actually media shills' etc). CNN may be untruthful and biased, but it's much less so that alternet will ever me.

Of course CNN wants to make money, but the best way to make money is to be pro-USA because that's what Americans love.. they can't get enough of themselves.
So the money AND their own bias is pointing them in the same direction, and it's so obvious.
And about that "did you underestimate the Iragi forces" question... wooooo what a shockingly critical question that is, gimme a break.

A critical question is asking Cheney about his former company that has mysteriously won plenty of contrats to equip the troops during this war.. actually it's a 30 year contract I believe, I mean at this point they're not even trying to make it look like it's on the up & up.
Never heard that once on US media.

3/4 of US media's experts they are asking to comment on the war are retired military men... gee let me see how unbiased THEY would be... ugh

Then show an anti-war demonstration, always followed immediately by pro-war demonstration. They quickly slip in the fact that the anti-war was 100,000 people while the pro-war was about 500... they make it look as if it's all pretty even.
Then what do you know, they make 10 minute "profile" segment about the pro-war rally... but nothing about the anti-war... how surprising.

Then the funniest thing is those 30 min "presentations" by the US military where they show slides of US bombs and how they are so precise... sure those 5 they chose went great, let's spend 30 minutes EVERY day on that.
And those "other" bombs that were so precise that they didn't even land in the right COUNTRY (a few in Iran, a few in Turkey), or on civilians.. mentioned in maybe a minute if that, then cut to commercial.

So don't tell me money is pushing CNN (and other US networks) to be fairer, to the contrary it's pushing them to be as pro-american as possible.
And they say showing the prisoners on TV is a violation... who from CNN is asking them if Guantanomo Bay is a violation?
And they say showing dead corpses is disgusting, maybe so, but exploiting the family members of the victims and POWs to rev up the anti-war sentiment on TV is equally as disgusting.

Personal attacks on other posters are not necessary, and contribute nothing. Please confine criticisms to the contents of the post itself, not the poster. Thanks.

Go HAbs!

[Cranky]

G said:

Osama is still on the loose

He is? News to me.

G said:

Then the funniest thing is those 30 min "presentations" by the US military where they show slides of US bombs and how they are so precise... sure those 5 they chose went great, let's spend 30 minutes EVERY day on that.
And those "other" bombs that were so precise that they didn't even land in the right COUNTRY (a few in Iran, a few in Turkey), or on civilians.. mentioned in maybe a minute if that, then cut to commercial.

Laser guided and GPS guided weapons still use gravity to land within a certain radius. The laser and GPS make what could otherwise be a gravity bomb into a far more accurate bomb. If Saddam has learned to repeal the laws of gravity, then someone forgot to send me a memo. Mind you, there is a probability that some of them are getting caught in the wings of Canada geese going on vacation and land up a country or two away.

As for cruise missiles, they have a double redundant system in their guidance system. If they are hit by AA fire, they can fail to land on their target. There is also the probability of mechanical failure and they will land short of their target by a country or two on their flight path. If you fire them from the Kuwait to Bagdad then it can fail along the pathway and only the pathway. (3% probability). The cruise missiles do not have the right passports or license plates to pass through Turkey and Greece so they can land on my neighbors chicken coup. Besides, have you ever gone through Turkish and Greek customs?

“A few in Iran and a few in Turkey” Out of how many thousands? Even in the worse mechanical failure, the probability that they will hit populated areas is in the 1% to 2% range. Remember, they are flying in a horizontal path. If they have a guidance failure, they will most probably hit a side of a mountain or hill then someones outhouse.

[The New Guy]

MC said:

It's precisely as relevant as Saddam's is in determining what the real reasons are for this war, and what the consequences of it will be. (In other words not at all)

On the death penalty subject, the book Lazarus and the Hurricane about the freeing of Rubin Hurricane Carter gives a lot of insight into the American legal system. It certainly made me reevaluate my views. (Alternatively you can watch the movie The Hurricane with Denzel Washington)

I still don't see what the number of people executed in Texas while George was governor - really, last time I checked the governor didn't sit on the bench and pronounce judgement on people. I thought judges and juries did that.

But as long as were discussing legal systems, yes - the American legal system is flawed. So are the Canadian, British, French and German system. But if you've really got a complaint - why not sample the Iraqi system of justice, where essentially the rule is if the Ba'ath party (or someone higher than you in the Ba'ath party) thinks you're guilty, you're guilty.

Later

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The_New_Guy said:

...why not sample the Iraqi system of justice, where essentially the rule is if the Ba'ath party (or someone higher than you in the Ba'ath party) thinks you're guilty, you're guilty.

Later

Seems the likely assumption, but just the same:

www.undp-pogar.org/countries/iraq/judiciary.html

[The New Guy]

G said:

Oh yes, freed the populace from the wrathful Taliban and right into the hands of the peace-loving & caring warlords... gee thanks.

Fact is Bush & co was so excited to jump on Iraq as soon as possible they never finished the job... the goal was to 1-find Osama and 2-clean up Afghanistan so it could no longer be an Al-Quaeda haven. The result is 0 for 2, Osama is still on the loose & with practically the whole country besides the capital under warlord control. And my oh my I can't imagine one or more of those warlord could be bought off to start harboring Al-Quaeda members once more... can you?

Osama is still theoretically on the loose, however his power is greatly reduced. As for the warlords being bought off by Al Queda - I doubt it. It goes back to the whole discussion I was carrying on about religion. The beliefs of the Afghan warlords don't fall in line with Osama's. And these are people that hold their beliefs to such a high degree that it's hard for them to work together. That's why the Taliban was so 'tight' with Osmam Bin Laden - a common religion versus the rest of the tribal warlords.

On another point, life under the warlords of Afghanistan is likely better than life under the Taliban. As one warlord lacks complete control of the entire country a la the Taliban, they can not enforce the extreme policies of the Taliban

By the way, 'the moral high ground' means that it was just a boost to their cause, rather than their prime cause.

G said:

US will not install this "great freedom" or "beacon of democracy"... the usual bull transmited by CNN and all US media. The reality is that they will install a puppet government that will distribute the oil rights to the US's liking.

Once again, the US wants the UN to administer the country once Iraq is defeated. This contradicts your and PTH's "the US wants to take all of Iraq's oil" theory. Please try and reconcile your theory with fact.

G said:

No thought has been given to the Kurds and how they've been living in limbo in the North, no thought of letting them get their own independant state or anything like that. Instead they have said the integrity of Iraq's borders will remain. Why? Because that's what their friends Turkey wants.

Geeze Louise! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If the US is not justified in going into Iraq (a evil/unstable/bad/oil filled country depending on your point of view) as you espouse, what right does the US have to take a large chunk out of Turkey(an at least mildly better/poorer depending again on your point of view) to give to the Kurds? That'd be like the US saying 'yeah, we're going to give Quebec to the Native Americans'.

G said:

This war was done for 2 reasons:

1- every passing day where Saddam is still in power was an embarassment to Father Bush and his administration, most of whom just happen to be in Little Bush's team as well.
It highlighted how they screwed up the 1st time when they didn't finish him off, when they looked on as the people they encouraged to rebel were slaughtered for listening to them... with their US forces right there and watching, ordered not to interfere.

2- with Saudi Arabia being the #1 oil producer, and them being so inextricably linked to terrorism or the harboring of them... US relations have cooled, and the US needs another major supplier so they can then tell the Saudis what they really think.

The first reason of your theory is at least slightly better that PTH's (I can buy the revenge angle. I disagree that Saddam is an embarassment to Big Bush however, though this is really an opinion thing). As for the second reason - once again, it's based upon the logic that the US (and not the UN as proposed by the US/British coalition) which just doesn't hold true to fact.

G said:

None of the reasons for attacking Iraq have to do with their bogus Al-Quaeda ties, or the broken resolutions... that's just the excuse the US feeds us, and nobody in the world is buying other than about half of the US population.

Poppycock. Iraq has ties to several terrorist organizations, and although it is not known if Iraq has had direct dealings with Al Queda, it is very likely that one of those other organizations has ties to Al Queda. Furthermore, the resolutions were broken. Period.

G said:

Of course CNN wants to make money, but the best way to make money is to be pro-USA because that's what Americans love.. they can't get enough of themselves.So the money AND their own bias is pointing them in the same direction, and it's so obvious.

And about that "did you underestimate the Iragi forces" question... wooooo what a shockingly critical question that is, gimme a break.

A critical question is asking Cheney about his former company that has mysteriously won plenty of contrats to equip the troops during this war.. actually it's a 30 year contract I believe, I mean at this point they're not even trying to make it look like it's on the up & up.
Never heard that once on US media.

Umm... check your source on that -k? Because Haliburton (Cheney's company) doesn't produce military goods at all. The proper statement here would have been questioning why Haliburton got a 73 million contract to come in to extinguish oil well fires and subsequently repairing the wells. And the answer is because there are only a handful of companies in the world which actually extinguish oil well fires (Haliburton retains what is widly considered the best group in the world (whose name I don't remember, though they were also one of the major oil well extinguishing groups in GWI) incase one of their wells goes up). There simply was as capable competition (only two other companies I believe).

G said:

3/4 of US media's experts they are asking to comment on the war are retired military men... gee let me see how unbiased THEY would be... ugh

Perhaps you'd like to go in and provide commentary on the progress of the battle? After all, you're an expert in military tactics right? A former NATO high commander? Lots of combat command experience? No? Oh, well, then I suppose the US ought to have relied on the vast number of former Iraqi high commanders that now live in the US right? None of those availible? Damn.

More in a moment...

[The New Guy]

G said:

Then show an anti-war demonstration, always followed immediately by pro-war demonstration. They quickly slip in the fact that the anti-war was 100,000 people hile the pro-war was about 500... they make it look as if it's all pretty even. Then what do you know, they make 10 minute "profile" segment about the pro-war rally... but nothing about the anti-war... how surprising.

You need to watch CNN more often then. They've only once implied that the pro-war/anti-war protests have been the same size (which was just a mistake by the anchor in how he described them rather than an intentional implication, and which was corrected immediatly). Quite frankly, they give quite a bit of air time to the anti-war protests, or at least did while anyone cared. But it's old hat now...

G said:

Then the funniest thing is those 30 min "presentations" by the US military where they show slides of US bombs and how they are so precise... sure those 5 they chose went great, let's spend 30 minutes EVERY day on that.

Exaggeration. Ten minutes max. Unless it's a slow day and they run the press conderence twice

G said:

And those "other" bombs that were so precise that they didn't even land in the right COUNTRY (a few in Iran, a few in Turkey), or on civilians.. mentioned in maybe a minute if that, then cut to commercial.

Only one into Turkey (I'm not sure what class missile it was). Tehran has subsequently stated that the missiles that landed in Iran were not American design, but Iraqi. Though I suppose Iran is a part of the American media conspiracy too.

G said:

So don't tell me money is pushing CNN (and other US networks) to be fairer, to the contrary it's pushing them to be as pro-american as possible. And they say showing the prisoners on TV is a violation... who from CNN is asking them if Guantanomo Bay is a violation?

Guantanomo Bay actually falls into a shade of grey region, since they are not actually POW's since they are not technically members of any kind of armed forces (which is crucial to the definition of POW believe it or not). Of course, I'm not a scholar of international law and I'd be willing to listen to someone more knowledgable than I in the area.

I will, however, state very clearly, that showing prisoners during interrogation is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. While not the most horrific thing ever done to a POW, it is disheartening.

G said:

And they say showing dead corpses is disgusting, maybe so, but exploiting the family members of the victims and POWs to rev up the anti-war sentiment on TV is equally as disgusting.

I'm going to assume you meant "rev up the pro-war sentiment", since otherwise you just detroyed your entire anti-CNN rant in one fell swoop. And I will say that I agree with you, showing the families of the POW's is wrong.

But notice I never said CNN was innocent, nor did I say that they weren't pro-war. This whole arguement has been and effort to prove that CNN is biased towards the war. Guess what? It is! I would've agreed to that immediatly. Just because they're biased however, does not mean that they're wrong. Just that they show only one side of the story. They're actually quite accurate when it comes down to it. Take the Salam Pax website that was posted here not long ago. Reports things that CNN reports a couple days later (ostensibly because they aren't as aware of the city as he is).

As for me - I read other stories when I find them. I read other peoples information. I read other opinions. I collect ideas. And I distill what I can of the truth.

What I don't buy into are wild conspiracy theories. I look at the source. And quite frankly, alternet is laughable. Like other wonderful websites like Aryan Nation and KKK News Weekly (fictional of course - I don't read these either) they're coloured by their political views and the fact that they're convinced that they're being silenced by a govenment conspiracy (yours espouses that media outlets are wrong and completely useless, my suggestion argue are convinced the jews and/or the blacks are out to get them).

G said:

Personal attacks on other posters are not necessary, and contribute nothing. Please confine criticisms to the contents of the post itself, not the poster. Thanks.

Go HAbs!

Once again Mr. B, I didn't detect a personal attack. But I've been told I'm oblivious to personal attack, so...

Later